This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
And are you a follower of the "showing up ideology"? Because I'm not particularly interested in hearing your interpretation of other people's ideologies.
Right, but you're not telling me I should follow your ideas, because we both disagree with the Bluehair, which is what I feel CA's constant reminders that he's one of us fellow
kidsright wingers, is aimed to do.I'm either misunderstanding you or vehemently disagreeing. No, I don't think Black Hebrew Israelites should be free to identify as Jews. If any particular person wants to leave a group, that's his right, if any other group doesn't want to have him, that's their right.
Feel free to disagree, but then you're not for freedom of association.
You’re the one who claims it has any validity, so I expect you to defend it when I point out a case where you act contrary to it (fertilization).
“You believe X is true. A straightforward understanding of X implies Y. Y results in Z. You deny Z is true. Therefore, X is false.” Is a valid argument. You can’t just dismiss my reasoning on the grounds that I don’t believe the terms. Whole classes of arguments, like ad absurdum, would disappear.
I didn’t see him do that here. It was just you reminding him that he’s not a real right-winger because of his utilitarian-like reasoning. It looks like ideologically directed social pressure: ‘you can’t sit with us unless you believe this and that’. I don’t recognize that as a legitimate way of changing someone’s mind.
And really, what is he, if he's not a right-winger? Clearly he's not a progressive (unless he's lying, that's a different problem). So, if he doesn't want to become a groupless and stateless reject and eat alone every meal, he has to acquiesce to your demands of ideological conformity.
Oh. Well if you have any questions about what I believe, feel free to ask them, but if there's something that interests me less than you telling me what other people believe, it's you telling me what I believe.
I can dismiss it on the grounds that I don't believe in X, you just think I do because you heard something that sounded like this to you, or that even though Y is a straightforward implication of X for you, it isn't for me or others. More broadly - feel free to point out the flaws in my reasoning, but if you're going to try to tell me what I believe, you're going to be ignored.
Doesn't matter, I was bringing up past conversations when responding to him.
He can sit we me all he wants, but he does not get to portray himself as representative of my worldview, or adjacent to it.
It's far from clear to me, even if he's being 100% honest.
Weird how you let progressives create right-wingers by dissociating from people, and everyone else has to accept the label they put on their opponents.
You’re still avoiding the question of why showing up even matters, if you can just arbitrarily pick and choose when it applies, and when morality, or anything else, easily overrules it. If you do not deign to educate me, I’ll just ignore your “not showing up” objections from now on.
Yeah, like I said, I'm not going to answer your interpretations of beliefs I supposedly hold, that I haven't even brought into the conversation.
You brought it up in a different conversation a few days ago, which I linked. You're being inconsistent.
I don't know what the communication problem here is, but clearly we're going nowhere fast. So I'll exit here and I'll see you on another thread.
It's pretty simple, what I said in the other thread does not contradict the point "I don't see how there's anything morally suspect about wanting to stop the fertility industry". You did not bring up morality in the other thread where I responded to you, I did not bring up morality when I was responding, you did not bring up morality here, and you do not get to tell me that "showing up ideology" is about morality, if I'm the one believing in it, and you not. There's nothing inconsistent in what I said, and this whole part of the conversation was completely off topic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link